Deletion of Section 3A without a saving clause barred pending excise demands, while appeals against confirmation remained maintainable.

Deletion of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act with effect from 11-5-2001, without any saving clause, meant that pending demands founded on that provision could not be sustained or confirmed. The appellate forum nevertheless retained jurisdiction over appeals already filed against such confirmation, so the pending appeals remained maintainable and could be heard. The impugned orders confirming liability under Section 3A read with Rule 96ZP(3) were therefore set aside, and the assessee was left without the confirmed excise demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demands confirmed under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act could survive after deletion of that provision without a saving clause; (ii) Whether pending appeals against such confirmation remained maintainable after the deletion.

Issue (i): Whether the demands confirmed under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act could survive after deletion of that provision without a saving clause.

Analysis: The demand arose from orders confirming liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The provision was deleted by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 11-5-2001, and there was no saving clause preserving such pending demands. In view of the earlier binding decisions relied upon, the deletion operated so that the demands could not be confirmed in pending matters.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained and the confirmation was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether pending appeals against such confirmation remained maintainable after the deletion.

Analysis: The deletion of Section 3A did not take away the assessee's right to challenge the confirmation already made. The appellate forum retained jurisdiction to hear appeals already pending, even though the underlying demand could no longer be confirmed in the absence of a saving clause.

Conclusion: The pending appeals remained maintainable and were capable of being heard.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders confirming the demands were set aside and the appeals were allowed, leaving the assessee without the confirmed excise liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a charging or machinery provision is deleted without a saving clause, pending demands founded on that provision cannot be confirmed, though pending appeals against such confirmation remain maintainable.

---